1987 P Cr (PLP)
MAHMOOD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MAHMOOD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MAHMOOD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Naeem Ullah Khan Shervani for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner neither named in F.I. R. nor allegedly causing any injury to deceased‑ Held, it was a case of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioner allowed bail. Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner neither named in F.I. R. nor allegedly causing any injury to deceased‑ Held, it was a case of further inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioner allowed bail. M. Naeem Ullah Khan Shervani for Petitioners. Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for the State. At the very outset it may be stated that learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the bail application of Mahmood Hussain. Accordingly, his application is dismissed.
2. As regards Abid Hussain petitioner, it is stated that he is named in the F.I. R. and further that only role of catching hold of Muhammad Shafi deceased is attributed to him in the supplementary statement made by Meraj Din complainant. He states that four other co‑accused were specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. but there was no mention at all of the persons or any other accused. Since the petitioner is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased and his name does not find mention in the F.I. R. it seems to be a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, I grant the petition and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Sialkot. S.G.D./M‑22/L Bail allowed.